Cost Effectiveness and Economic Impact of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the KineSpring System in the Spanish healthcare system, as compared to other standard treatments methods. Cost-utility ratios were calculated using derived cost data and we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for each method of treatment. Cost-utility ratios were calculated assuming lifetime and 10-year durability. Assuming lifetime durability, cost-utility ratios of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), high tibial osteotomy (HTO), KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €2348 ± 70/QALYs, €2040 ± 61/QALYs, €2281 ± 68/ QALY, €1669 ± 268/QALYs, and €11,688 ± 2185/QALYs, respectively. Assuming a treatment durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of TKA, UKA, HTO, KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €4884 ± 323/QALYs, €4243 ± 280/QALYs, €4744 ± 313/QALYs, €3757 ± 1353/QALYs, and €10,575 ± 4414/QALYs, respectively. In comparison to current standard-of-care treatments, the KineSpring System has a favorable cost-utility ratio, making it an effective treatment option and a suitable cost-saving alternative. The KineSpring System is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".